2026:HHC:19747 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No.4760 of 2019 Reserved on: 15.05.2026 Decided on: 25.05.2026 Nazakat Ali Hashmi ...Petitioner Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another ...Respondents Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner: Mr. Bimal Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Trigun Singh Negi, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Shyam Singh Chauhan, Advocate. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge The petitioner by way of present petition has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:- “1. That the present writ petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned orders Annexure P-5 dated 10.07.1997 and P-6 dated 13.10.97 may kindly be set aside and quashed. Any other relief which this Hon’ble deems just and proper. 2. That the petitioner may kindly be reinstated with all consequential benefits i.e. seniority, promotion, back wages and all other consequential benefits.” 2. The facts which emerge from the pleadings are 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:19747 that the petitioner was appointed as Inspector with the respondents-Corporation vide office order dated 26.12.1996 (Annexure P-1), and joined his duties on 17.01.1997. Before appointment of the petitioner as Inspector with the respondents-corporation, he was running the business of transport and after his appointment, he wrote an application dated 11.03.1997 (Annexure P-2) to the financer i.e. Tata Finance Limited Chandigarh to transfer his bus permit as well as loan account in the name of his family members. However, the Finance Company had written to the petitioner on 05.04.1997 (Annexure P-3) that as per the Hire Purchase Agreement entered by the petitioner with the company, he is not supposed to sale the vehicles and loan amount could not be transferred till the finance amount interest is remitted to them. Further the petitioner was informed that the loan amount was given on the basis of the bus permits granted to him by Himachal Pradesh Government and thus the permits cannot be transferred till the dues towards the company is liquidated, otherwise it would be treated as breach of contract from the petitioner’s side. 3. A memorandum was issued to the petitioner on 05.07.1997 (Annexure P-4) by the respondents-Corporation, 3 2026:HHC:19747 that on his appointment with the respondents-Corporation, he was supposed to submit a return regarding movable property inherited by him on lease or mortgage either on his own name or in the name of any member of his family or in the name of his relatives and further being corporation employee, except with the previous sanction, he was not supposed to be engaged directly or indirectly in any trade or business. It has been found that the petitioner is running a transport business and is operating two buses bearing registration Nos. HP-17-8786 and HP-17-4786, which are registered in his own name in violation of the provisions of the Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, (for short the ‘CCS (Conduct), Rules’), as well as the relevant provision of the fundamental Rules and thus a show cause notice was issued as to why suitable action be not taken against him for violation of the above service Rules/conditions and thereby concealing the facts about running a transport business in his name during his employment in the corporation without proper permission. 4. The petitioner on receipt of the aforementioned show cause notice, submitted his reply on 29.07.1997 (Annexure P-4A) and pleaded that the show cause notice is 4 2026:HHC:19747 not based on actual and true facts and hence the contents are not admitted. The petitioner had purchased two buses bearing registration Nos. HP-17-4586 and HP-17-8786 in the year 1995 and 1996, respectively when he was unemployed. These buses were financed by Tata Finance Limited, Chandigarh and after his selection as Inspector with the respondent-Corporation in the month of January, 1997, he had immediately approached the financier to transfer the ownership of the buses, but they had refused to do so till the repayment of entire loan amount with interest etc., so these vehicles could not be transferred in the name of his family members. He had further mentioned that he has appointed his father and brothers as attorneys to look after and manage the affairs of these buses jointly and severely and for this purpose, even General Power of Attorney has been executed on 04.03.1997. After joining the service, the petitioner did not purchase any movable and immovable property in his name or in the name of any family members and thus, there is no violation of CCS (Conduct), Rules as well as relevant provisions of fundamental Rules. As such, he had prayed for withdrawal of the said show cause notice. After receipt of the said reply furnished by the petitioner, 5 2026:HHC:19747 communication dated 10.09.1997 (Annexure P-5) was issued to the petitioner allowing him 15 days’ time to either surrender his route permits and dispose of his private buses or else quit HRTC job. In any case, the petitioner cannot be allowed to operate private buses and run private transport while serving with the respondents-corporation. However, despite receipt of the said communication, the petitioner did not dispose of the private buses and respondents- Corporation had passed an office order dated 13.10.1997 (Annexure P-6) terminating his service forthwith. 5. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the said order had preferred the Original Application, which came to be registered as CWP(T) No.4583 of 2008, titled, Shri Nazakat Ali Hashmi vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another, and the same was disposed of on 25.08.2010, for the reason that the petitioner had not preferred any appeal against the order passed by the competent authority and the petitioner was directed to prefer an appeal within a period of three weeks and thereafter the Managing Director of the respondents- Corporation to pass a speaking order within a further period of 10 weeks after receipt of the certified copy of the 6 2026:HHC:19747 judgment. It was also mentioned that appellate authority while considering the grounds of appeal/pleas raised by the petitioner, shall also take into consideration that the penalty of termination imposed upon him is prima-facie harsh and oppressive. It was further made clear that the grounds of limitation will not come in the way of the petitioner in filing the appeal. 6. After the direction given by this Court, the petitioner preferred a statutory appeal before the Managing Director of the respondents-Corporation stating therein that he is not running the business of transportation while in the service of the respondents-Corporation. Further it is nowhere mentioned that owning the property movable and immovable is in derogation of any service Rules including the CCS Rules and fundamental Rules, which are not applicable to the respondents-Corporation and it is nowhere mentioned in the service Rules, regulations including CCS Rules and fundamental Rules that the incumbent in service cannot have licenses and leases in his name. Others grounds were also taken in the appeal. 7. The Managing Director of the respondents- Corporation vide office order dated 15.11.2010 (Annexure P- 7 2026:HHC:19747 9) had rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner, noticing that it has been established that the petitioner was operating two buses registered in his own name before his appointment and he continued to operate these buses even after getting appointment as Inspector with the respondents-Corporation, which is a clear violation of Rule 15 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The petitioner was issued the proper show cause notice for his misconduct and further he was even given 15 days’ time to either surrender his route permits and dispose of his private buses or else quit HRTC job. After waiting for more than a month, his services were terminated under Rule 5 sub-Rule (1) of Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. 8. The petitioner has not laid challenge to the order dated 15.11.2010 (Annexure P-9) passed by the Managing Director of the respondents-Corporation, as is clear from the prayer clause reproduced hereinabove. 9. The petitioner has only challenged the show cause notice dated 05.07.1997 (Annexure P-4) and office order dated 13.10.1997 (Annexure P-6), whereby his services were terminated. It has been averred in the petition that the impugned order of termination on the ground of 8 2026:HHC:19747 alleged misconduct is punitive and stigmatic in nature and, therefore, the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India are attracted. Further before ordering the termination, regular enquiry was required to be conducted in order to establish that the petitioner has committed misconduct while in service, but no such enquiry had been conducted. Therefore, the action of the respondents-Corporation is arbitrary, void, illegal and un-constitutional caprices. Further, it is nowhere mentioned that owing property movable or immovable is in derogation of any service Rules including the CCS (Conduct), Rules and fundamental Rules and thus, prayed for quashing the order of termination as well as show cause notice issued to the petitioner. 10. The respondents-Corporation have filed reply to the petition and submitted that no injustice whatsoever has been done to the petitioner. He has suffered due to his own act and conduct, since the petitioner was running a transport business and simultaneously, he was in the roll of the respondents-Corporation. The employees of the respondents-Corporation are neither holding any civil posts nor they are in the civil services of the State. The Board of Directors of the respondents-Corporation have adopted 9 2026:HHC:19747 most of the Rules applicable to the employees of the State Government such as CCS(CCA) Rules, Conduct Rules etc. The petitioner had not disclosed the fact of running the buses in his name at the time of his recruitment with the respondents-Corporation and even thereafter had failed to surrender the route permit within the time given by the respondents-Corporation. It was further submitted that the petitioner was running two buses bearing registration Nos. HP17-8786 and HP17-4786, in his name, which is in violation of the CCS (Conduct) Rules. The petitioner had falsely replied that he is not running the transport business, whereas the aforesaid vehicles were in his name and further he had failed to surrender the route permits of the vehicles even within the time given by the respondents-Corporation. 11. The petitioner filed rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondents-Corporation and controverted the averments. 12. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. 13. Learned senior counsel representing the petitioner has argued that once in the appointment order dated 26.12.1996, there was no stipulation to carry on the 10 2026:HHC:19747 business, the petitioner should not stop to carry on the business of plying the buses. He further argued that the petitioner after joining the respondents-Corporation had taken steps to transfer the bus permits as well as loan account in the name of his family members on 11.03.1997 (Annexure P-2), however, the said request was turned down by the Finance Company on 05.04.1997 (Annexure P-3), stating that the loan amount was given to the petitioner on the basis of the bus permits granted by the Himachal Pradesh Government. Further the permits cannot be transferred till the dues are not liquidated, otherwise it could be treated as breach of contract from his side for which he would be absolutely responsible. 14. Since there is no fault on the part of the petitioner and he could not transfer the vehicles only on account of the permission not granted by the Finance Company, the order of termination is bad in law. 15. No doubt in the appointment order dated 26.12.1996, it was not mentioned that the petitioner shall not carry on any other business, but after joining the respondents-Corporation as Inspector, the petitioner was to be governed by the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Rule 15 of 11 2026:HHC:19747 the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 reads as under:- “15. Private trade or employment (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-Rule (2), no Government servant shall, except with the previous sanction of the Government- (a) engage directly or indirectly in any trade or business; or (b) negotiate for, or undertake, any other employment, or (c) hold an elective office, or canvass for a candidate or candidates for an elective office, in any body, whether incorporated or not, or (d) canvass in support of any business of insurance agency, commission agency, etc., owned or managed by any member of his family, or (e) take part except in the discharge of his official duties, in the registration, promotion or management of any Bank or other company registered or required to be registered, under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) or any other law for the time being in force, or of any co-operative society for commercial purposes. (f) participate in or associate himself in any manner in the making of- (i) a sponsored media (radio or television) programme; or (ii) a media programme commissioned by Government media but produced by a private agency; or (iii) a privately produced media programme including video magazine: Provided that no previous permission shall be necessary in case where the Government servant participates in a programme produced or commissioned by Government media in his official capacity” 16. A perusal of the ibid Rule clearly reveals that no Government servant shall, except with the previous sanction of the Government engage directly or indirectly in any trade or business. In the present case, the petitioner 12 2026:HHC:19747 was not granted any previous sanction to carry on the business of plying buses. Rather the respondents- Corporation had given 15 days’ time to the petitioner either to surrender route permits and dispose his vehicles or else quit the job. But the petitioner neither replied nor surrendered route permits and not disposed of the vehicles. 17. The plea raised in the petition that the impugned order of termination on the ground of alleged misconduct is punitive and stigmatic in nature and, therefore, the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India are attracted. In this regard, it is relevant to mention that the petitioner was appointed temporarily (on year to year basis) as per office order dated 26.12.1996 and thus, his services were terminated under the proviso of sub-Rule 1 of Rule 5 of Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. 18. Though the petitioner has not laid challenge to the order dated 15.11.2010, passed by Managing Director of the respondents-Corporation, yet it would be relevant to mention that in the said order, it has been clearly mentioned that the services of the petitioner have been terminated under sub-Rule 1 of Rule 5 of Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. Sub-Rule 1(a) of 13 2026:HHC:19747 Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, reads as under:- “The services of a temporary Government servant shall be liable to termination at any time by a notice in writing given either by the Government servant to the Appointing Authority or by the Appointing Authority to the Government servant.” 19. In the present case before terminating the services of the petitioner he was issued the notice on 10.09.1997, and after one month, the order of termination was passed on 13.10.1997. Since the mandate of the law has been duly complied with, no illegality can be found with the order passed by the Appellate Authority, which otherwise has not been challenged in the present proceedings. It is also relevant to mention here that the petitioner in sequel to the office order dated 26.12.1996, had joined his services on 17.01.1997 and as per this office order, the post was purely temporary, ( on year to year basis) and before the expiry of one year, the services of the petitioner were terminated and thus, no illegality can be found with the said order passed by the respondents- Corporation, which order has been affirmed by the Appellate Court. Since the petitioner was temporary employee of the respondents-Corporation, no regular enquiry was required to 14 2026:HHC:19747 be conducted by the respondents-Corporation. 20. In the present case, the petitioner has not disputed that he was plying two buses bearing registration Nos. HP 17-8786 and HP-17-4786. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was issued a communication dated 10.09.1997, thereby allowing him 15 days’ time to either surrender the route permits and dispose of the private buses or else quit HRTC job. It is also not disputed that the petitioner had not surrendered the route permits and continued to ply the buses. The respondents-Corporation is also carrying on the business of plying buses and as such, the continuation of the same by the petitioner would have definitely hampered the interest of the respondents- Corporation. Even if this fact is not taken into account, once the Rules clearly prohibits engaging of a Government servant directly or indirectly in any trade or business after joining the job, the mere plea that the appointment order does not stipulate the condition that the petitioner cannot carry on the said business cannot be accepted. 21. As far as the second plea taken by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that he had taken the steps to transfer the ownership, but the Finance Company had 15 2026:HHC:19747 refused to transfer, till the time the dues are liquidated, is concerned, if the letter dated 05.04.1997 (Annexure P-3) is perused, the Finance Company had specifically mentioned that the Company had given the loan amount on the basis of the bus permits granted to the petitioner by the Himachal Pradesh Government and further the permits cannot be transferred till the dues towards the amount are paid, which would be treated as breach of contract. By simply placing reliance upon the said communication, it cannot advance the case of the petitioner, especially when it was for him to take steps to get the bus permits transferred in favour of other persons by liquidating the amount or make efforts to get the loan transferred in favour of other persons. The respondents-Corporation had given enough time to the petitioner to surrender the route permits and dispose of the private buses, but the petitioner took it casually. Since the CCS(Conduct) Rules, 1964 clearly prohibits engagement of the Government employee directly or indirectly in any trade or business without the sanction of the Government, no illegality can be found with the order of termination. It is also not in dispute that the respondents-Corporation had not granted any sanction to the petitioner to carry on the 16 2026:HHC:19747 business of plying the vehicles. Rather as stated above, the respondents-Corporation had given enough time to the petitioner to either surrender the route permits and dispose of his private buses or else quit HRTC job. When no response was received by the respondents-Corporation for a month, it had no option except to pass the order on 13.10.1997 (Annexure P-6) terminating his services. 22. As already mentioned above, the petitioner has not laid any challenge to the order passed by the Managing Director of the respondents-Corporation. Since the order passed in the appeal has attained finality, until and unless the said order is set at naught, no relief in the instant proceedings could have been granted in favour of the petitioner. 23. No other points have been raised. 24. Resultantly, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed. However, there shall be no orders as to cost. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 25 th May , 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (Anurag) Judge